Identity Construction through Logos: An Analysis of 8 Egyptian
Universities
Prof. Hamed A. Eada and Dr. Nermeen H. Salehb
a
Principal i/c, Professor of Chemistry, Faculty of Science
b
Assistant Professor of Design, Faculty of Specific Education Cairo University, Egypt
Article History: Received: 11 January 2021; Revised: 12 February 2021; Accepted: 27
March 2021; Published Online: 4 June 2021
Abstract
Branding of higher education is essential in creating a positive image and has significant impact on identity creation and promotion, differentiating, and positioning itself in a highly competitive environment. This study examines logos of eight universities in Egypt in their identity construction, through critical discourse analysis (CDA), a deductive reasoning approach deciphering the formal elements and semantics of various shapes, images, symbols, and colours used therein. It shows that the various elements and semantics in their logos are mostly based on their cultural heritage, religious beliefs, and past history of civilization to project a perceptory image of an academic institution. Only recently, a trend is emerging to use modern symbols, graphics, themes, and images that are more progressive and scientific, linking the younger generations to the future. While logos stand for the identity of these institutions and are being extensively used to promote and market the various programs they offer, their relevance and reinforcing role in marketing communications, branding, and advertising have to be linked from “impression” to “delivery.” Hence, further research is recommended to assess “what these institutions stand for,” “how they accomplish them,” and “what they deliver,” as well as what role logos play in brand valuation.
Keywords: Egyptian universities, History of Branding, Semantics, Identity, Logo Design.
1. Introduction
Branding is an integral part of marketing strategy; it is the creation of identity and reputation. Branding efforts are not limited to “consumer” products, but they also include firms in various service industries that utilize branding strategies to build a stronger image and reputation. Over the past few years, country branding has been studied by political and media researchers looking at the social and political aspects of so-called “soft power.” According to Dinnie K., (2016), “many governments have invested in nation branding to strengthen their country‟s influence, improve their reputation, or boost tourism, trade, and investment.” There is also “place branding” and “city branding,” and an increasing number of countries are becoming aware of their national and local brands aiming to increase their value (Gelder, S., and Allan, M., 2006). The main reason that countries are trying to brand themselves more positively is that they know the importance of the brand to attract investors, tourists, and the international media. The expansion of international activity by politicians since the early 1990s has led to an upsurge in such studies, with the result that country branding and public diplomacy are both connected with the increasing influence of soft power. Nowadays, the majority of policymakers and international relations scholars concur that prestige is critical to world politics because States having prestige enjoy greater authority. To say the least, country branding has become essential to achieve the desired impact in the global arena.
Hence, applying corporate branding techniques to countries is considered a logical extension of consumer branding. In this regard, universities have also begun to realize the need to develop sustainable brand strategies (Krunal Trivedi, Pooja Trivedi, Vandana Goswami, (2018)). Therefore, branding has become a strategic issue and focus for universities and other postsecondary educational institutions in order to develop meaningfully differentiated brands to communicate their strengths (Evons, 2006). In the past, the traditional role of universities was to maintain their prestigious status and to contribute to society by imparting knowledge as a sole and noble purpose to create non utilitarian knowledge, encourage human development and produce great scholars (Askehave, 2007; Zhang, 2017). The function of the university was not just to pass on theoretically acceptable knowledge, such as the schools and colleges do, but rather to demonstrate how this knowledge is applied, in order to stimulate a scientific thought process and incorporate the fundamental laws of science in all their thinking (Wisseme, 2009).
Globalization has given rise to heightened competition amidst the changing landscape of the economic environment, where the financial conditions of most of the higher educational institutions- universities, institutes, and colleges (i.e. brands) in the marketplace are dependent on attracting the same students. Moreover, the relatively simple promotional tools of the past no longer work as they once did. Today‟s students are fully immersed in a variety of digital applications and social media, which makes institutions of higher education struggle to understand and embrace their needs. Globalization has increased competition not only within, but outside the country as well, as students are now more mobile and willing to move further away from home to study at the desired university. Hence, higher educational institutions of a country, especially in the developing world, need to keep pace with what is happening in the world and develop themselves accordingly. The increasingly competitive market, influences universities to use branding as the main tool for differentiating themselves and gaining a competitive advantage. Accordingly, colleges and universities are turning to branding to thrive, and in some cases to survive (Kwong, 2000). The creation of a successful brand or identity became very important for every institution whose success depends upon its clients (Rust & Uys, 2014; Wissema, 2009). Universities whose survival mainly depends on external stakeholders tend to develop a strong brand that is considered an imperative part of their marketing strategies (Watkins & Gonzenbach, 2013; Pinar, Trapp, Girard, & Boyt 2011).
A company‟s brand consists of tangible and intangible assets of which, its logo, typeface, slogan, colors, all contribute toward enabling viewers to recognize and likely even reaffirm trust in the organization (Downing, 1993). Graphic designers have played a big role in articulating the need for corporate identity formation and management (van Riel & Balmer, 1997). Technology has resulted in more visual impressions being communicated through various electronic systems. Logos maybe printed on street signs, packaging, moving vehicles. Research by McNeal and Ji (2003) indicates that the number of visual cues remembered in current times, has increased over the past 26 years. According to D‟Souza and Williams (2000), logos and visual cues facilitate the recognition and choosing of product brands. Thus, if universities want to establish a strong brand identity, they should give more concrete evidence to support their claim, through images, logos, words, and slogans (Hoang & Rojas-Lizana, 2015; Rust & Uys, 2014). Hence, effective communication in general, and through the use of forms, symbols, images, words, and slogans in particular, can create, establish, promote, and sustain a brand identify through culture, space, and time. Still, research on university branding is scarce and the concept of university branding remains relatively unexplored.
The higher education sector in Egypt is going through global changes and is facing the challenges of both funding crunch and intense competition. Hence, they are encouraged to adopt a business-like and consumer-centric approach by considering students as customers who buy their products and services (Louisa Loveluck, (2012). This research investigates the identity construction of eight Egyptian public universities that differentiate their services through logos.
2. Literature Review 2.1 Brand name
Brand described in the 1960s as a name, term, sign, symbol, design, or a combination of all these, intended to identify the goods or services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from their competitors (Coleman; 2010; Watkins, & Gonzenbach, 2015; Etzel, Walker & Stanton, 2007). Etzel et al (2006), as cited in Hoang and Rojas-Lizana (2015) stress the definition of brand as a name, design, symbol, and/or mark used to identify the service or product of one seller or entity and to differentiate the service or product from competing services or products.
With respect to “service brand,” Brodie, Glynn & Little (2006) and Coleman (2010) conceptualize it in terms of “making,” “enabling,” and “keeping” promises, which are in agreement with the definition of the AMA. According to the AMA (2011), a brand may identify one item, a family of items, or all items of a seller. If the brand is used for the organization or firm as a whole, the preferred term is a trade name. In legal terms, brand is referred to as a trademark. The above definitions and others similar to them have been criticized (Jevons & Gabbott, 2009; Etzel, Walker & Stanton, 2007). This claim is however contestable, given that they consider both goods and services, while other elements of the definitions, such as name, design, symbol, or trademark have equal applicability to service brands.
According to De Chernatony (2006) and Brodie, Glynn & Little (2006), brand is not just a name, because the name is created to identify the product or service. The brand adds value to the product or service and gives it a personality and there could be a psychological and implicit emersion between the brand owner and consumer or audience, through which shared expectations are set and met (Kapferer, 2004; Jevons & Gabbott, 2009), and it could be a perception that exists in the mindsets of consumers or audience.
From all definitions of brand, one can predict that the role of the brand has moved from just designating the ownership of services or product, into a valuable source of information and a tool that delivers promises to enhance relationships. It could be unique to distinguish one service, product, or organization from the other. Keller (2008) and De Chernatony (2006) stress that brand is the essence of an organization, a powerful differentiator, and decision-making tool from the consumers' perspective.
2.2 University visual identity
An increasing number of universities that started to consider the concept of corporate identity, have integrated it within their business strategies. The corporate identity of a university contributes to the configuration of its image. The positive image of a university is based on a positive perception by the public. Hence, the identity of a university includes its appearance, such as, logo and color and its public behavior and actions (Chapleo, C. (2010),Nurhayati, 2012).
Universities might choose not to change their core icons, but they tend to modernize their visual material, like the logo. Logos are colorful and textless icons that support the semiotic expression of the brand (Drori, Delmestri & Oberg, 2013). The logo style is selected based on the differentiation strategy and competition among universities. University logos should be
able to communicate what they stand for and for whom. Universities use bold and realistic designs to attract students through marketing and promotions; hence, their logos should reflect the services in the field of education. Their logos, slogans, and mottos should represent their uniqueness in the higher education market. These visual materials should be displayed on universities‟ websites, social media platforms, certificates, and many other promoting tools (Shahnaz & Qadir, 2020). The competition between universities resulted in the concept of promotional universities (Drori, Delmestri & Oberg, 2013).
2.3 Identity construction of universities through logos
A logo (an abbreviation of logotype, from Greek: λόγος, Romanized: logos, lit. “Word” and Greek: τύπος, Romanized: typos, lit. “Imprint”) is a graphic mark, emblem, or symbol used to aid and promote public identification and recognition. It may be an abstract or figurative design, or include the text of the name it represents as in a word mark. There are five principles of effective logo design, as follows:
o A simple design allows for easy recognition and allows the logo to be versatile and memorable. Good logos feature something unique without being overdrawn;
o Following closely behind the principle of simplicity, is that of memorability. An effective logo design is memorable and this is achieved by having a simple, yet, appropriate logo; o An effective logo should be timeless – that is, it will endure through the ages;
o An effective logo should be able to work across a variety of mediums and applications. The logo should be functional. For this reason, a logo should be designed in vector format, to ensure that it can be scaled to any size; and
o How you position the logo should be appropriate for its intended purpose. For example, if you are designing a logo for a children‟s toy store, it would be appropriate to use a childish font and color scheme. This would not be appropriate for a law firm.
It is strongly believed that if universities want to “introduce” their product to their customers (students), they need to provide solid proof to sustain their claim (e.g. logo, words, and images) (Hoang and Rojas-Lizana, 2015; Barabas, 2017). In university settings, the usage of logos and mottos represent their institutional identity (Slaughter and Rhodes, 2004; Anctil, 2008; Toma, Dubrow and Hartley, 2005; Zhang, 2017). Moreover, it is asserted that unforgettable mottos and logos have been useful for educational institutions for many years; they create recognition, legitimacy and meaning, leaving a strong impression on the institution (Pulley, 2003; Saichaie, 2011). According to Drori et al. (2013), a university logo combines various expressions including images organized in a particular arrangement with specific colors to identify the university and celebrate its unique character, history, vision, and other features. These logos, mottos, and slogans proclaim the unique place of the university in higher education and can be used for promotional and marketing purposes, on websites, prospectuses, T-shirts, monuments, souvenirs, certificates, and files (Swales, 2004). Thus, Osman (2008) considers logos and mottos to be symbols of the university.
3. Methodology: The research is designed to be exploratory, aiming to provide an initial
understanding of the different versions of typology used for the chosen universities‟ brand identities. The research approach is predominantly qualitative with inductive reasoning. The qualitative approach seemed to be the most appropriate way to build a picture based on the ideas of informants. This research type is a case study of logos of eight public Egyptian universities. Four of them are Cairo, Alexandria, Ain shams and Assiut universities, that represent the history; while the other four Suez, Damietta, Matrouh and Luxor universities, were recently established. The eight universities logos were analyzed to understand the creative elements adopted in creating the visual brand identities of these universities and to explore variations in university logos due to their diverse backgrounds, by using the critical
discourse analysis (CDA). According to Kress and van Leeuwen‟s (2004) model, the universities represent their identities through their innovative logos, to get recognized instantly. This study presents an analytical framework of universities‟ brand identities, which focuses on the shape, color, and typeface of the logo. There were three critical stages in the adopted methodology. A summary table is presented in Figure 1 and Appendix 1.
Stage 1- Identification of the university: The purpose of the study was to identify the
types of expressions embedded within the design of the chosen universities‟ brand identity. Four of the eight Egyptian universities are licensed and accredited internationally, considered appropriate higher education organizations representing the best entities in Egypt.
Stage 2- Identifying the logo: The second aspect of the selection process involved
examining the logos of each of eight universities, to determine which logo they are using on their website and other marketing and promotional materials.
Stage 3- Identifying the elements: Drawn from literature, following methodologies
adopted by Henderson, et al. (2004) and Xu, Chen, & Liu (2017), this study incorporates a structured and progressive approach that allows codes to represent layered details from the logo analysis by exploring the shape of the logo, the colors, and specific lettering cases.
4. Data and Analysis
An analysis of the logos of the chosen universities was carried out in the first part of Stage 3 of the methodology to understand the recurring themes concerning the creative elements being used. The analysis tables of the 8 universities logos revealed the shape of the logos, the colors being used, and the typeface, are presented in Tables from 1 to 8 (Appendix). The researchers critically evaluated these brand visual identities, which represent the theoretical framework for future design consideration.
4.1 Logo elements
As earlier argued, there are three elements of a logo; the shape, the typeface, and the color (Henrik Hagtvedt, 2011. These three elements served as the coding framework for the universities‟ logo, and the results are presented in the subsequent section.
o Shape: The shape serves as the container for the other creative elements that form the logo. The circle or square was the most predominantly used shape by the chosen universities. The shield, however, had different variations, like an inverted shield, flat top, and pointed bottom. There were universities as well that used the coat of arms as a brand identity on their website. While some universities used regular shapes like circles, rectangles, and ovals, some universities used irregular-shaped items for the identity. Perhaps that is a creative choice they have made which may have inherent meaning in their culture.
While the shape of the logo is recognized as an outline and container for the logo, the internal components are linked to their history. This is a unique feature of the four historical Egyptian universities‟ logos, which is an example of the Egyptian royalties in Egyptian universities and cultural artifact.
o Typeface: It is an important marketing element. It is a visual tool that helps organizations to communicate their products and services with customers. It impacts the customers‟ perception and influences, their memorability and readability of the brand. Accordingly, typeface results in significant impressions regarding the brand, like innovativeness, the matter that impacts the organizational financial performance (Henderson, Giese & Cote, 2004). o Color: The visual image of the brand and logo design. The perceptions of customers are not
always identical. Therefore the selection of color is important for customers to recognize the brand personality. Color has an intrinsic impression that conveys a message regarding the brand. Designers and organization managers choose the brand color based on their past experiences and preferences (Flores, 2017).
4.2 Semiotic analysis of logos
Scholars generally believe that branding is also important in education just like the corporate world (Pesch Calhoun, Schneider & Bristow, 2008; Gopalan, Pagiavalas & Jones, 2008). It provides institutional identity and distinguishes it from other competitors (Gupta & Singh, 2010; Curtis, Abratt & Minor, 2009; Judson et al., 2009). Furthermore, it is believed that in the business world, the selection of colors and logos seem to have a tremendous effect in attracting the emotional response of users (Owoyele, 2016). In this regard, many of the researchers adopted the semiotic analysis of logos (Arnold, Kozinets & Handelman, 2001; Mick et al., 2004; Bishop, 2001, Thompson & Haytko, 1997 The design of the brand for
university institutions represents a semiotic system that has a representative function that carries absolute ideas within a general cultural framework documenting the culture of society, whose role transcends a function that goes beyond mere description through visual symbols. Accordingly there is a strong link between the design of the brand and its semiotic connotations that work on stirring the interest, then creating desire and preferences, and extends to the persuasion stage, on which universities rely to give a distinctive feature that serves as the face of the university.
University institutions are keen to highlight their name and visual identity in the most elegant way, and in this research: universities of Cairo, Alexandria, Ain Shams and Assiut used when designing their own brands to highlight their points of distinction. Cultural symbols are an important part in the design of their faces. Cairo University relied on an image of the god of knowledge and wisdom in ancient Egyptian art, and Alexandria University is a visual symbol that is the "lighthouse" characteristic of the local environment, which carries historical, heritage and cultural values engraved in the history of Alexandria, which helps the viewer to accept cultural diversity. As for Ain Shams University, it has chosen a visual symbolic image of the obelisk and the two hawks as a shorthand for a long history of creative and cultural practices in order to decipher the visual media message, and Assiut University relied on the semantic meaning of the elements through the intermingling and overlap between the symbolic and iconic representations, where the recipient finds himself in a relationship that connects him and between the symbolic system that refers to the semiotic connotation of a brand with an aesthetic and functional value that achieves attractiveness. And interactive.
On the other hand, the university‟s location may have an important aspect in the significance of the brand and the meanings it bears, and this has been shown in the design of the logos of the Universities of Luxor, Matrouh, Damietta and Suez, which is an important part for the recipient to know about the surrounding community. To represent a functional and communicative pattern in a system of symbolic significance that combines the data of the environmental visual form and its cultural content, where reality is conveyed in a visual iconographic form as a semiotic system that carries with it semantic and cultural relations that include the culture of the community that forms the awareness and perception of the recipient, as demonstrated by the University of Matrouh and Damietta In designing its mark, while Suez University emphasized the societal role by combining science, art, economics and environment by deepening the concept of semiotic semantics for the selected formal elements and making use of them in formulating the meanings and connotations addressed by the brand in constructing the shape and meaning at the same time
5. Discussion
The research findings show that the early established four universities did not change their logos since their inception, which indicates that they did not try to redesign their logos to match the changes in the marketing strategy and modernization. The new universities tend to use more graphic and visual simplification. Similar inferences have been drawn by Shahnaz & Qadir, (2020). Moreover, Luxor and Matrouh universities‟ logos are criticized for being unsuitable for a modern university. The Suez university‟s logo is criticized for using traditional colors that are not intense or eye-catching.
Universities should reposition their educational services in the market by using appropriate logos and mottos (Mafofo & Banda, 2014). The new style of corporate branding uses clean lines, minimal bold colors, large bold fonts, and stylish symbols to reflect the visual identity of the university and at the same time relate it to student or customer expectations. This is likely to increase students‟ commitment to the university. Hence, the logo represents the university's corporate visual identity (Holloway & Holloway, 2005). The research findings
show that only Damietta University‟s logo uses a modern design and communicates the message of the institution‟s brand.
According to Stellenbosch University (2019), universities should implement a brand valuation to be able to judge their strengths and weaknesses as well as to optimize the universities positioning through branding, logos, and slogans. Accordingly, the logos of universities should reflect globalization and the changes in the field of higher education. Universities should consider the market demand that requires them to be competition‑ driven and to embody their identities within the market culture (Drori, Delmestri & Oberg, 2013).
Hence, the pre-70s universities represent an ancient Egypt image through their mottos while the post-70s universities represent a progressive and modern image by coining their own slogans. Branding universities is similar to the methods used for any product that can improve its visibility, popularity, and financial outcomes and should be trendy and progressive. The core objective of universities as institutions imparting knowledge, should not be compromised at any cost and differences must be maintained between academia and businesses.
6. Conclusion
This research is limited to investigating the logo designs of eight public Egyptian universities. It is evident that the majority of the public universities have used their logos to project a perceptory image of their brands (institutions) by using images, designs, symbols, themes, and shapes of various kinds based on their cultural heritage, religious beliefs, and past history of civilization. It is only in the case of the new universities, that a trend is emerging to use modern symbols, graphics, themes, and images which are more progressive and scientific, linking the younger generations to the future. Hence, logos will remain as a major instrument that the public universities employ to market their institutions, highlight their programs and strengths to their target audience. It is recommended that future research should be expanded to comparing public and private universities logo designs, and also to make historical comparisons that show the development in logos‟ designs.
Further, branding and advertising not only create value, but also differentiate institutions from their competitors (Kapferer, 2004). Hence, this calls for effective management and delivery of branding and advertising initiatives to consistently provide the opportunity of communicating the unique qualities and features of higher education institutions, in order to gain a competitive advantage. This study attempted to assess how public universities in Egypt handled their branding programs through their logos and it is observed that the eight universities studied used their logos to reflect their institutional identity as educational institutions by using various colors, images, symbols, and shapes in a systematic, practical and professional manner, to a large extent. However, logos on a standalone basis cannot create a positive brand image and reputation, unless they deliver what they stand for, rather, the impression of the university in the minds of the people matters when they hear or see a name or a symbol of the university. The relevance and reinforcing role of the logo in marketing communications, branding and advertising in higher education institutions, especially public universities, has to be linked from “impression” to “delivery.” This would require concerted efforts at strategic levels, wherein, a stakeholder approach is applied across all the constituents, improving the quality of faculty, research, employability of students and contribution toward the society, economy, and country. Hence, further empirical studies are also recommended to assess “what public educational institutions stand for‟, „how they accomplish it‟ and „what they deliver.” It is important to investigate the relationship between logo and brand valuation in Egyptian universities compared with similar cases in other countries.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their deepest gratitude to the Enago Editing team and EKB team for sharing their inputs in this research. Their work and valuable comments have greatly improved the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
References (APA)
[1]. Arnold, S., Kozinets, R., Handelman, J. (2001). Hometown ideology and retailer legitimation: the institutional semiotics of Wal-Mart flyers. Journal of Retailing, 77(2), 243-271.
[2]. Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607082576.
[3]. Gelder, S., and Allan, M., (2006), City Branding: How Cities Compete in the 21st Century, UK, Primaveraquint.
[4]. Krunal Trivedi, Pooja Trivedi, Vandana Goswami, (2018), International Journal of Management, Economics and Social Sciences 2018, Vol. 7(2), pp. 186 – 205.
[5]. Askehave, I. (2007). The impact of marketization on higher education genres: The international student prospectus as a case in point. Discourse Studies, 9(6), 723−742.
[6]. Zhang, T., Higher Education Studies; Vol. 7, No. 3; 2017 2017.
[7]. Brandi A. Watkins, B., William J. & Gonzenbach, W. (2013). Assessing university brand personality through logos: an analysis of the use of academics and athletics in university branding. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education. 23(1), 15-35.
[8]. Brodie, R., Glynn, M. & Little, V. (2006). The service brand and the service dominant logic: Missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory? Marketing Theory, 6(3), 363-379.
[9]. Louisa Loveluck, (2012), Background Paper Education in Egypt: Key Challenges Middle East and North Africa Programme, Chatham House March 2012.
[10]. Dr Sol Rojas-Lizana, https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/ public/Research/ Middle%20East/0312egyptedu_background.pdf.
[11]. Brodie, R.J., Glynn, M.S. & Little, V. (2006). The service brand and the service-dominant logic: Missing fundamental premise or the need for stronger theory? Marketing Theory, 6(3), 363-379.
[12]. Coleman, D. (2010). Service Brand Identity: Definition, Measurement, Dimensionality and Influence on Brand Performance. Unpublished PhD Dissertation., England: University of Birmingham.
[13]. American Marketing Association dictionary.(2011). Retrieved Octob John Kash er 02, 2011, from http://www.marketingpower.com/_layouts/Dictionary.aspx?dLetter=B.
[14]. https://www.ambitionstock.com/logo-styles-in-different-industry-fields/ [15]. John Kash, https://www.designhill.com/design-blog/5-principles-logo-design/ [16]. https://languages-cultures.uq.edu.au/profile/1148/sol-rojas-lizana
[17]. De Chernatony, L. (2006). From Brand Vision to Evaluation, Oxford: Butterworth – Heinemann.
[18]. Slaughter, S., Rhoades, G. (2004). Academic capitalism and the new economy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Unviersity Press.
[19]. Anctil, E. J. (2008). Selling higher education: marketing and advertising America‟s colleges and universities: The higher education report. Hoboken, NJ: ASHE Higher Education Report.
[20]. Toma, J. D., Dub row, G., Hartley, M. (2005). The Uses of Institutional Culture: Strengthening Identification and Building Brand Equity in Higher Education. ASHE Higher Education Report, 31(2), 1-105.
[21]. ZHANG, T. (2017). the Marketization of Higher Education Discourse: A Genre Analysis of University Website Homepages in China. Higher Education Studies, 7(3),64.
[22]. Kress, G., Van Leeuwen, T. (2006). Reading images: The grammar of visual design(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
[23]. Top Universities in Egypt 2021 Egyptian University Ranking, https://www.4icu.org/eg/ [24]. Xiaobing Xu &Rong Chen &Maggie Wenjing Liu, Mark Lett (2017) 28:449–460. [25]. Henrik Hagtvedt, Journal of Marketing Vol. 75 (July 2011), 86 –93
[26]. Pulley,J. L. (2003). Romancing the Brand. Chronicle of Higher Education, 50(9).Ramasubramanian, S., Gyure, J. F., Mursi, N. M. (2002). Impact of Internet images: Impression-formation effects of university web site images. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 12(2), 59–68.
[27]. Gopalan, S., Pagiavalas, N., & Jones, T. (2008). Branding MBA programs: Are they sufficiently related to an institution‟s strategy? Proceedings of the Academy of strategic Management, Allied Academies International Conference, 7 (20), 14-19.
[28]. Curtis, T., Abratt, R., & Minor, W. (2009). Corporate brand management in higher education: the Case of ERAU, Journal of Product and Brand Management, 18(6), 404-413.
[29]. Barabas, C. D. (2017). A genre analysis of Philippine university brochures.(Unpublished master‟s thesis). University of San Carlos, Cebu City, The Philippines.
[30]. Bishop, Ron (2001). Stealing the signs: A semiotic analysis of the changing nature of professional sports logos. Social Semiotics11 (1), 23–41.
[31]. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Exploration and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Taylor, B. J., Morphew, C.C. (2010). An analysis of baccalaureate college mission statements. Research in Higher Education,51(5), 483-503.. [32]. Osman, H. (2008). Re-branding academic institutions with corporate advertising: a genre
perspective.Discourse & Communication,2(1), 57-77.
[33]. Saichaie, K. (2011). Representation on college and university websites: An approach using critical discourse analysis.(Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Lowa, United States. [34]. Thompson, Craig J. and Haytko, Diana L. (1997). Speaking of fashion: Consumers‟ uses of
fashion discourses and the appropriation of countervailing cultural meanings. Journal of Consumer Research24 (June), 15–42.Barabas, C. D. (2017). A genre analysis of Philippine university brochures.(Unpublished master‟s thesis). University of San Carlos, Cebu City, the Philippines.
[35]. Hoang, T. V. Y., Rojas-Lizana, I. (2015). Promotional discourse in the websites of two Australian universities: A discourse analytic approach. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1–19.
[36]. D'Souza, D. E., & Williams, F. P. (2000). Toward a taxonomy of manufacturing flexibility dimensions. Journal of Operations Management, 18(5), 577-593.
[37]. Dowling, G. (1993), Developing your company image into a corporate asset. Long Range Planning, 26(2), 101-109.
[38]. Drori, G., Delmestri, G., & Oberg, A. (2013). Branding the university: Relational strategy of identity construction in a competitive field. In: Trust in higher education institutions. UK: Portland Press Limited.
[39]. Etzel, M., Walker, B., & Stanton, W. (2007), Marketing (14th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[40]. European Institute for Brand Management (EURIB, 2009), Kapferer‟s Brand-Identity Prism Model. Retrieved from http://www.eurib.org/fileadmin/user_upload/ Documenten/PDF/
Identiteit_en_Imago _ENGE/v-Het_Brand-Identity_Prism_model_van_Kapferer__EN_.pdf [14.09.2012].
[41]. Evons, C. (2006). Universities: A prime example of branding going wrong. Journal of Product & Brand Management, 15(7), 466-467. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 10610420610712856.
[42]. Flores, M. (2017). Color, font, and shape: Logo design elements as moderators of brand. Journal of Brand Management, 28(2), 152-170.
[43]. Gupta, M. & Singh, P. (2010). Marketing and branding higher education: Issues and challenges, Review of Business Research, 10 (1), 46-53.
[44]. Henderson P, Giese J, Cote J. (2004). Impression management using typeface design. Journal of Marketing. 68(4), 60-72.
[45]. Hoang, T.V.Y., and I. Rojas-Lizana. 2015. „Promotional Discourse in the Websites of Two Australian Universities: A Discourse Analytic Approach‟. Cogent Education 2 (1).
[46]. Holloway, D., & Holloway, D. (2005). University logos and the commoditization of higher education. Corporate Responsibility Conference. Australia.
[47]. Iqbal, M., ABM Rasli, A., Rasli, I.& Bin Md, A. (2012). University branding: A myth or a reality, ABM Ibn-e-Hassan Rasli. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) 6 (1), 168-184.
[48]. Jevons, C. & Gabbott, M. (2009), A historical review of the development of definitions of brand, 5th Thought Leaders International Conference on Brand Management, Athens, Greece.
[49]. Kapferer, J., N. (2004). The New Strategic Brand Management: Creating and Sustaining Brand Equity Long Term. London: Kogan Page.
[50]. Keith Dinnie, K. (2016). Nation Branding, Concepts, Issues, Practice. UK: Routledge. [51]. Keller, K. (2008). Strategic Brand Management: Building, Measuring and Managing Brand
Equity, 3rd Edition. Pearson Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ.
[52]. Kwong, J. (2000). Introduction: marketization and privatization in education. International Journal of Educational Development, 20, 87-92. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-0593(99)00060-7.
[53]. Mafofo, L. & Banda, F. (2014). Accentuating institutional brands: A multimodal analysis of the homepages of selected South African universities. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 32(4), 417-432.
[54]. McNeal, J. U., & Ji, M. F. (2003). Children‟s visual memory of packaging. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(5), 400-427.
[55]. Nurhayati, I. (2012). Slogans and university‟s image: The use of English in universities' slogans in developing the image of the universities (A case study in private universities in Bandung, West Java, Indonesia): Proceeding of Jogja International Conference on Communication. Indonesia.
[56]. Owoyele, S. (2016). Website as a marketing communication tool, (May). Perspective. Discourse & Communication, 2(1), 57-77.
[57]. Pesch, M., Calhoun, R., Schneider, K. & Bristow, D. (2008). The student orientation of a college of business: An empirical look from the student perspective, Marketing Management Journal, spring, 100-108.
[58]. Pinar, M., Trapp, P, Girard, T. & Boyt, T. (2011). Utilizing the brand ecosystem framework in designing branding strategies for higher education. International Journal of Educational Management, 25, 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541111172126
[59]. A. A. Rust and & C.S. Uys, (2014), Journal of Social Sciences. 40(1):29-40
[60]. Shahnaz, A., & Qadir, S. (2020). Branding the Higher Education: Identity Construction of Universities through Logos, Mottos and Slogans. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 8(1), 48-71.
[61]. Stellenbosch University (2019). Towards a Brand Positioning Strategy and Refreshed Brand Identity for Stellenbosch University. South Africa: Stellenbosch University.
[62]. Van Riel, C.B.M. & Balmer, J. M. T. (1997). Corporate identity: the concept, its measurement and management. European Journal of Marketing 31(5/6), 340- 355
[63]. Wissema, J. (2009). Towards the Third Generation University: Managing the University in Transition. UK: Edward Elgar Pub., 2009.
Appendix: Data Analyses of 8 Egyptian Universities
